ABA Journal, Aug. 1, 2024 "Immigrants coming to the U.S. face legal uncertainties along with difficult living conditions and the pain of family separations. Yet a hope that opportunities will outweigh...
Jorge Loweree, Aug. 14, 2024 (free link) "[T]he reality that is all too clear to immigrants navigating our byzantine system, and the lawyers and advocates who try to help them, is that there is...
Cornell Law "Cornell Law School is seeking to hire a staff attorney to collaborate with and contribute to Path2Papers , a new deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) project at Cornell Law...
Monique O. Madan, The Markup, Aug. 10, 2024 "The thing that can be unsettling is that there are so many ways that you are probably being watched. You’re aware that you’re being watched...
DHS OIG, Aug. 8, 2024 "In January 2024, we conducted onsite, unannounced inspections at four U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities in the Del Rio area, specifically three U.S. Border...
"For PERM practitioners, what is the practical take away lesson from Symantec? Does the fact that 656.17(f) does not apply to the additional forms of recruitment mean that these additional forms of recruitment can indeed contain job requirements or duties which exceed the job requirements or duties listed on the ETA Form 9089? Can the three additional forms of recruitment contain requirements that are more restrictive than the minimum requirements listed on the ETA Form 9089? In footnote No. 4 to its decision in Symantec BALCA en banc mentioned that the CO, in his argument, relied on East Tennessee State University, 2010-PER-38 (Apr. 18, 2011) (en banc) where the Board concluded that an advertisement placed in fulfillment of an additional recruitment step must not include requirements not listed on the Form 9089, and stated that this conclusion is not binding upon the Symantec en banc Board as the issue was not raised or briefed by the parties, or necessary to the resolution of the appeal, and the Board did not analyze the scope of 656.17(f) in any depth. This could be seen as somewhat confusing to PERM practitioners. How can BALCA hold that 656.17(f) does not apply to the additional recruitment steps but then fail to address the East Tennessee en banc decision stating that the additional recruitment steps must abide by 656.17(e)? Which en banc decision governs?
I think that PERM practitioners ought not to read too much into Symantec’s footnote No. 4. ..." - Cora-Ann V. Pestaina, Aug. 12, 2014.